If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Comment

Maybe they are, but don't try to lecture native speakers about how they use there language incorrect. There are also countless words in German that are used incorrectly if you go by the original meaning.

Another thing I'd like to ask: Do you have any references to "a black picture has unlimited fps in a real time raytracer"? Because to my understanding, a ray traced images is created by tracing rays. So if no rays are traced because the 286 is to slow to do any significant number of rays/sec, the image is not a ray traced image.
I mean everyone agrees that you can produce 60fps with an averagely slow computer if you sacrifice image quality beyond the image being recognizable at all. But you can hardly argue, that it doesn't matter at what framerate you render the image, because the image quality will degrade past the point where its even recognizable because of missing information. Even if you use some kind of local adaptive resolutions or whatever, on a 286 you won't be able to get even 24 fps with an even remotely recognizable picture. I know you never wanted to write that, but thats what this is about. Tracing rays at 24/60 fps and getting a picture out of it that is beyond what rasterizers can achieve. Call your 60fps on 286 raytracer "real time" if you want, but don't show it anyone, they will laugh in your face.

Comment

Call your 60fps on 286 raytracer "real time" if you want, but don't show it anyone, they will laugh in your face.

I think you meant 60 rays per second picture. LoL.

And no I don't think a hd7970 can deliver Crysis 3 1080p quality rendering by ray tracing. Unless you enjoy watching pixel garbage on every camera movement. Games are rarely static. Thus the whole adaptive crap will be of limited benefit.

Comment

Kind of related I think is this discussion between Tim Sweeney and Andrew Richards. They both have very different views on how the future of graphics should or could be done. Andrew more favors the traditional rasterization on GPUs approach "for the forseeable future", Sweeney argues their rasterizer wasn't that much slower then what 3DFX delivered and they would have a better image quality today if GPUs never would have gained market share...
Featured by the quite sarcastic and weired Charlie from Semiaccurate:http://semiaccurate.com/2010/09/22/t...ture-graphics/

Comment

Trying to get back on topic: Before you can design your processor I guess you should first try to figure out what kinds of games you want to run on your platform. Then you'd need to analyze those games in terms of CPU usage. Once you've figured out which CPU functions you need (and which you don't) you could try to design a CPU which offers only the functionality that's actually used. One other thing you'd need to figure out: Is your CPU going to be compatible to existing CPUs so that games can be run without any modifications or would you need to recompile the game to run on your platform?

Like I already said, usually software adapts to the hardware, not the hardware to the software. Its easier to change your software to use new features available in hardware than it is to adapt your hardware to growing needs of your software. Adaption means specialization and specialization means it will be very good at what it does but it also means it may not be able to do anything developers want or need in the future.

If you're simply going to try to be as cheap as possible you might get away with using a high-end video card and an existing low-end CPU that's just fast enough so as not to slow down the GPU.

so yes google translate fails here... but maybe the english speaking people fail?

I know this is going to derail the thread even further, mea culpa. Words rarely have only one meaning and their meaning can change based on context. Most automated translators only give you the primary meaning of a word which doesn't always fit. When applied to sound "noise" can mean loud, obnoxious or irritating. When applied to an image "noise" is also irritating and the best translation is usually "Rauschen". Take the word "loud" for instance. When applied to sound, it describes a sound that is very noticeable or audible (and sometimes irritating). When applied to color "loud" becomes "noticeable" but also "irritating" and the best translation is probably "grell".

Comment

Maybe they are, but don't try to lecture native speakers about how they use there language incorrect. There are also countless words in German that are used incorrectly if you go by the original meaning.

Logic is a ultimate truth and if nativ speakers are not logical there thinking are damaned and this is a fact! this is right for all languages only in the mad-house this is wrong.

"Language" is a lifing beeing you can fix that irratonal unlogic stuff.

Another thing I'd like to ask: Do you have any references to "a black picture has unlimited fps in a real time raytracer"? Because to my understanding, a ray traced images is created by tracing rays. So if no rays are traced because the 286 is to slow to do any significant number of rays/sec, the image is not a ray traced image.
I mean everyone agrees that you can produce 60fps with an averagely slow computer if you sacrifice image quality beyond the image being recognizable at all. But you can hardly argue, that it doesn't matter at what framerate you render the image, because the image quality will degrade past the point where its even recognizable because of missing information. Even if you use some kind of local adaptive resolutions or whatever, on a 286 you won't be able to get even 24 fps with an even remotely recognizable picture. I know you never wanted to write that, but thats what this is about. Tracing rays at 24/60 fps and getting a picture out of it that is beyond what rasterizers can achieve. Call your 60fps on 286 raytracer "real time" if you want, but don't show it anyone, they will laugh in your face.

this only depends on your definition in my definition its the definition of the analog camera and if you put a black plastic cloth over your camera lens then you get a black output right?

if you calculate the same in a raytracer no ray hits the frame because of the black plastic cloth and because of this its a full black frame

Comment

And no I don't think a hd7970 can deliver Crysis 3 1080p quality rendering by ray tracing. Unless you enjoy watching pixel garbage on every camera movement. Games are rarely static. Thus the whole adaptive crap will be of limited benefit.

compared to crysis 3 a raytracing engine produce a much higher quality!

and a much higher quality need much higher hardware needs if you use a raster graphic engine right?

many raytracing videos on youtube are very nice with much weaker hardware.

this means yes a hd7970 rocks da house! and yes you can put 4 pices in your PC and with raytracing you get full speed of these 4 cards.